About your Search

20130201
20130209
STATION
CSPAN 6
CSPAN2 3
MSNBC 3
MSNBCW 3
LANGUAGE
English 22
Search Results 0 to 21 of about 22 (some duplicates have been removed)
a right to your religion. no help from the government at all on friday. >> this is part what have kathleen sebelius had to say. she said, today the administration is taking the next step in providing women across the nation with coverage of recommended preventive care at no cost, while reporting religious concerns. the administration believes it has met the concerns. >> well, shannon, for the many people whose religious rights are violated by this mandate, many of them have sued. they have been waiting for well over a year for something very simple, an exemption from the mandate. simply, that's what we do with people who have religious objections to laws. we exempt them. that's what these people have been waiting for and that's not what they got. the exemption that only applies to a house of worship was not expanded one inch. so the administration didn't do anything for the exemption or the business owners like hobby lobby. all they really did was propose a bookkeeping measure for certain religious organizations that may not really solve the problem at all. it wasn't a good feds for the re
-rights laws that prohibit firing, promoting and hiring based on race, age, national origin, religion, pregnancy, those immutable characteristics that we think are worthy of the protection of our civil rights laws. in most states there are modest exemptions to the employment at will dadoctrine, amount wrongful discharge. when an employer requires someone to break the law in order to keep their job. or if an employer is doing something that is in violation of a well-defined written public policy. other than that, we give employers in this country wi de latitude, because we have a free market economy, because we recognize the person that takes the risk and set up a business and puts their monetary and human capital into it, that they have rights to run their business the way they see fit. we are very, very reluctant to place any sort of restrictions on that. again, this is a small one. not saying that you have to hire anybody that is not fully qualified for your job. in essence, what these laws do rainout are saving employers from themselves, because if they are ignoring all of the unem
in the classrooms, particularly say on the subject of religion? >> well, in the hearing, i asked the question about a less on on islam that was sent to me by an enterprising parent and let me share this with you, alisyn, it was parents doing their homework and trying to get information that brought this to our committee's attention and so they found this lesson on islam and in texas we do teach all religions and students should learn about all religions, parents, i found it odd a full lesson on islam and not equal on christianity or any other religion. in the last segment, the answer was we changed that and that's not the program now and that's the danger of online learning, online learning is the future and it's terrific that, that's how students learn. if they're learning history and see the name patrick henry and it's linked to patrick henry, they can go in areas they can never go in a textbook. >> that's the wave of the future, so, how can you be sure of what the kids in texas and across the country are going to be taught. how can you change this curriculum now? >> yes. >> well, we're going to
that was all because we had to bowed down to the religion of the free market and what can never be repaid regarding t.a.r.p. is the contradiction, the double standard that when the plutocrats got into trouble, all of that garbage about the free market milton friedman and all that stuff got thrown a right out the window and said it is the double standard. it's the hypocrisy, the contradiction that can never be repaid. thanks. >> guest: let me talk about that because the caller raises an interesting point and this is something i've put a report out this past week. one of the things we learned in 2008 is that our financial system was very vulnerable to these highly interconnected financial institutions, these too big to fail companies. not only were the highly interconnected with each other, but what they learned is that their failure actually threatened american jobs and american pensions and american mortgages and that was shocking. i don't think that the regulators were prepared to deal with that and so even with the bailout coming at preventing the failure of some of the institutions, th
of their religion. by very credible reports the bureau of investigative journalism one of them over 100 people under the age of 18 killed in drone strikes in pakistan, a country we're not at war with. that's more than five nutans. where we have these debates and we can't have assault weapons and we're the number one global arms seller. we're taking the leading edge on the drone technology. we're regularly killing people in countries we're not even at war with. so i guess in this opaque system you talk about the legalities of it. it's about making laws so they can do what they want to do which they were doing any way. that i guess--i don't think that if you can rationalize killing anyone--unarmed kids because they happen to be near people you think are bad guys then i think you can rationalize basic basically killing anybody. >> you mentioned the numbers and we have the numbers for the audience right now. they're very telling. let's look at the first ten days of 2014. this is pakistan alone there were seven deadly strikes. at least 40 people killed. 11 of them may have been civilians. that's just an
of the kickoff changed. they're more aggressive penalties being called so the nfl really does have the religion now and it's a question of whether they can resolve this body of claims by the 4,000 former players, set those aside. deal with them in a straight-up way and then move ahead to try to make the game safer. >> paul barrett, thanks very much for injoing us. >> my pleasure. >> president obama weighed in. >> some of the concerns we have learned about have to give parents pause and, you know, as i said before, i feel differently about the nfl. these are grown men. pop warner high school, college. i want to make sure that we're doing everything we can to make the sport safer. >> so do you think we need to change the way the game is played in order to ensure player safety? peggy brand says, i think what the nfl is doing right now is a step in the right direction. i'm glad my son decided to stop playing in seventh grade. i probably want to ask him to stop. like us on facebook and join the conversation. >>> up next, undaunted. from the home front to the combat zone. the author whose stories of
laws while protecting freedom of religion. the second point is when we heard this exec committee earlier in january the republican leader indicated she was hoping very much it would be a bipart sfwlan bill, that we could work out some language issues chshgs we have been doing with some republicans. i don't think this should be a partisan issue, but, you know, we'll have to see how the vote actually goes, but i certainly hope we can get bipartisan support. >> illinois state senator heather, thank you for joining us. i appreciate your time and for everybody else, we'll be right back after this. [ female announcer ] today, jason is here to volunteer to help those in need. when a twinge of back pain surprises him. morning starts in high spirits, but there's a growing pain in his lower back. as lines grow longer, his pain continues to linger. but after a long day of helping others, he gets some helpful advice. just two aleve have the strength to keep back pain away all day. today, jason chose aleve. just two pills for all day pain relief. try aleve d for strong, all day long sinus and
of speech and religion. we are beginning to see government can be a force for good for quality of opportunity, like republican presidents eisenhower establishing the student loan program or the statewide highways, president nixon with the epa. if they put more time and effort in that, they can strengthen their overall party -- >> this is a moderating move, some are saying. is that not good? >> it's a moderating move by putting someone down again, rather than building something up. look, i think senator rubio, for example, what he's doing on immigration would be able to make the whole party more attractive and candidates that think that way more attractive. therefore, i think that would be their stronger heft, not just for a primary but for a general. >> this is about candidates and primaries and please do react as well, if you would like, but is the challenge really farther upstream with the voters at the moment they wanting more farther right candidates, if you will? >> well, look, first, i can't help but point out that joe sestak said positive things about rubio, who happened
the organization that it is religious and they want their employees to be similar religion. >> gregg: and they have every right. >> it's called the ministerial exception. it's in case law. it's exactly on point. if you are religious entity and focus is on that, there is a standard. they can make selections and appointments with hiring that are the same religious ilk. >> forprofit and nonprofit and you bring in the fair employment housing act. >> gregg: that is good point. by the way, that supreme court decision that we cited, due drew distinction forprofit and not. >> they are saying it's partially not for profit. this school says it is for profit, but i think that the court is going to still be the ministerial exception rule not for not for profits. >> gregg: if there is anybody that is performing a ministerial duty isn't it the teacher in the classroom, it's not the janitor. >> exactly right. >> that is the distinction in the supreme court case. >> gregg: ministerial distinction prevails. >> the ministers and teachers and not ministers. so it doesn't necessarily prevail. second of all, a minister
religions. unquote. the mission statement i just quoted translates into a comprehensive effort to penetrate to influence, otherwise subvert our american civil society. a form of government, a governing institutions. that explanatory memorandum i just quoted from was written on may 19, 1991, by a top muslim brotherhood operative, -- operative. now, though the justice department has established in federal court during the holy land foundation trials in dallas texas, that the groups identified by the muslim brotherhood in their memo are, quote, their organizations, end quote, a number of them and their successors have been treated by the obama administration as key interlock tors -- interlocutories in dealing with jihad. and believes in this administration, believe that these muslim brotherhood front organizations are legitimate representatives of the muslim -american community. they have enabled the muslim brotherhood to recruit and to show others, look, we are the ones that the white house trusts. we could call the white house. we can call and tell them we have -- there are three people who
, they would learn about each other's religion. at the boxing match, just before the bell rang, one of the boxes made the sign of the cross. the rabbi nudged the priest and asked what that meant. the priest says, it does not mean a thing if he cannot fight. [laughter] we bless ourselves with the hope that everything will be ok in this country. it does not mean a damn thing unless you are willing to fight for it. my message to you is that it does not mean a damn thing if you are not willing to fight for the american dream, a dream my parents had, a dream of giving our children a better life, a dream of always maintaining a government of, by, and for people. that course of duty is now passing to a new generation. with it passes the responsibility to never stop fighting for that better future. thank you very much. god bless you. god bless the united states of america. [applause] i will take a few questions. call ahead. >> thank you. thank you for coming to georgetown university and talking to us. i am in the security studies program here. i am taking a class on u.s. defense budgeting.
, freedom of religion, those are not just american values. the world agree to those values and the declaration, universal declaration of human rights and will stand up to them. it's not always easy in the have to pick our time. we can't be shortsighted or to penicillin continue to stand up for them. on the fundamental first level, we do what we do because it's in our security interest from economic interest in moral interest and we have to continue to do that. but as you go to the second level, how you adapt that to the world of today requires us to be more clever, more agile and wish i had do that. for example are adtran, -- there are those who estimate that maybe there are 50,000 violent homicidal extremists in the world, but they are able to maximize their impact and their messaging through the internet. but we try to do is say briefly mention is to get in there with them, undermine them and we've got them. it is something i did quite well in the cold war. the wife done this job, the more lessons i think we can transfer from the cold war to today. we don't have some mono
of religion, those are not just american values. the world agreed to those values in the declaration, universal declaration of human rights and will stand up for them. it's not always easy and we have to pick our time. we can't be shortsighted or did, but will continue to stand up for them. and the fundamental first level, we do what we do because it's in our security interest, economic interests in more interests and we have to continue to do that. but then as you go to the second level, how you adapt that to the world that today requires us to be more clever, more agile and were trying to do that. for example, countering violent extremism, does this to me there are maybe 50,000 violent homicidal extremists in the world, but they are able to maximize their impact and messaging today and are not and what we try to do is to get in there with him, to undermine non-and to rebut them. to dissent than we did quite well in the cold war. the more i've done this job, the more i think we can transfer from the cold war to today. no, we don't have some monolithic communist soviet union. but we
and exclusion from any of the activities of the state? guest: i am not the kind of islamic or religion scholar, but as a muslim i would say what is against humanity is against -- is not accepted by me as a muslim and i us as muslims in afghanistan. we do have our own definition islam and democracy, but i think it is not the way that was somehow understood in general here. host: the world press freedom index that we showed earlier showed the united states 32nd and afghanistan 128. i want to take that question and ask that about afghanistan. who is restricting the press? guest: the problems we're facing in afghanistan when i am saying "we" it means media people and media community. inside the government of afghanistan sometimes, the people who are fighting with the government, taliban, for example, and some local governments across the country, these are the three main barriers that we are facing with all that we have the constitution, the article 34 is just granting access free media and freedom of information. the article 50 is granting access to information. all of the media [indiscernible] u
's religion. at the boxing match just before the bell rang one of the boxes made the sign of the cross. the priest said, it does not mean anything if you cannot fight. we bless ourselves with the hope everything will be ok in this country. it does not mean anything unless you're willing to fight for it. my message to you is that it does not mean a thing if you are not willing to fight for the american dream. the drama -- that torch of duty is as into a new generation. with it passes the responsibility to never stop fighting for the better future. think you very much. god bless you. god bless the united states of america. [applause] i will take a few questions. call ahead. >> thank you. thank you for coming to georgetown university and talking to us. i am in the security studies program here. i am taking a class on u.s. defense budgeting. at georgetown, we do care about these issues and we share your concerns, as well. in the defense budget of 2013, i understand 19% of the budget is being represented for personnel. about 26% is for procurement. 40% is for operations. if you look at all
when i talk about freedom of expression, freedom of religion, those are not just american values. the world agreed to those values and we are going to stand up for them. it is not always easy. we have to pick our time. on the first level, do what we do because it is in our interests. as you got to the second level, how you adapt that to the world of today requires us to be more clever we are trying to do that. count during a violent extremism. maybe there are 50,000 violent homicidal extremist in the world. but they are able to maximize their impact and their messaging through the internet. what we have tried to do is to get in there with them, to undermine them and to rebut them. it is something we did in the cold war. more lessons i think we can transfer from the cold war to today. we don't have some monolithic soviet union. we were engaged in pushing out our ideas and our values, refuting communist propaganda. the cold war ended. "democracy has triumphed. we do not have to do that anymore." that's a terrible mistake. i have tried to convince congress and others if we do not ha
Search Results 0 to 21 of about 22 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)